Originally posted by FreakyKBHI still can't seem to see that tree. Which part of this did I not address?
The drive can be explained, can be readily fit with an evolutionary model of life. What cannot be explained--- what hasn't even been stabbed at yet--- is why a person with such an obvious drive as SH would openly admit that this drive isn't enough to satisfy, isn't enough to quench his thirst.
Counter-intuitively, he states that the drive for knowledge ...[text shortened]... es the warmth derived from the relational aspects of those connections.
Not duty, love.
Love is basically social behavior. You may notice that we tend to love those who either share our genes or are likely to assist us in passing on our genes. In fact there is a very clear trend in how we dish out our love ie we love according to what percentage of genes we share. Evolution explains this very well. Theism does not explain it at all. Theism usually takes love to be axiomatic.
You are not actually presenting any argument. You simply state it is 'counter intuitive' or 'curious' yet it seems that it is only counter intuitive to you. Everyone else seems to think it is obvious. So you need to present an argument or at least an explanation as to why you think evolution would not lead to love.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't know what to tell you beyond that you need to do your homework. All you need, in order to make sense in evolutionary terms of the kind of prosocial human emotions/attitudes/dispositions at issue here, is some very basic understanding of things like kin selection, mutualism, reciprocity. In particular, given your focus on hearth & home, I would think basic ideas in kin selection speak directly to this issue. I recall that KellyJay had a similar gripe recently, and he and I had a quick exchange that is relevant:
I think I'm being serious. Are you reading?
The point goes beyond duty. Hawking, like most folks, is driven by his desire for affection, not by his desire for copulation and its attendant responsibilities. This is beyond have-to's, treading into the land of want-to's.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=132598&page=7#post_2509802
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm not sure this statement is entirely true:
I still can't seem to see that tree. Which part of this did I not address?
Love is basically social behavior. You may notice that we tend to love those who either share our genes or are likely to assist us in passing on our genes. In fact there is a very clear trend in how we dish out our love ie we love according to what percentage of genes we share. Ev ...[text shortened]... n argument or at least an explanation as to why you think evolution would not lead to love.
You may notice that we tend to love those who either share our genes or are likely to assist us in passing on our genes. though I will give you credit for using the word tend.
Many people have contentious relationships with their family, to the point of wanting nothing to do with them. Also, Stephen Hawking would not be (in the animal world) a suitable mate from which to draw genetic materia; yet clearly people love him, and he loves others. In fact many people feel deep love for friends that become like family. Freaky may be on to something here about the need for humans to love and feel loved...not just by sexual partners and family.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH“...Two-fold. Fold in half: knowledge of how things work--- at the end of the day--- simply imparts knowledge of how things work. Nothing else is conveyed and certainly no level of value imparted. ...”
[b]In what sense is it “ not all that satisfactorily”?
Any prick that has no interest in knowledge is going to stay pretty ignorant and obviously this is going to decrease his chances of survival.
Two-fold. Fold in half: knowledge of how things work--- at the end of the day--- simply imparts knowledge of how things work. Nothing else is conveyed a ...[text shortened]... ation efforts; he said he really needs the love of his family.
Let's get back on topic.[/b]
If you understand how something works, you can; 1, predict its behaviour; 2, manipulate it to your advantage. Example; if you understand the behaviour and psychology of wolves, you can; 1, better avoid becoming its pray (by disguising your scent tracks etc); 2, work out how to domesticate some of them so that you can use them to help you hunt and also protect you.
Knowing how fire works or tools work also helps survival.
Clearly, knowing how things work can help you survive so it make perfect evolutionary sense to evolve to have this ability.
“...Second fold: animals without our knowledge are surviving just fine....”
-and they might survive better if they did have our knowledge so, again, it make evolutionary sense for us to evolve with this ability.
“...Step further, there are some who suggest that our knowledge is dangerous, in that our ability to make machines which lighten our load is working against us and darkening our chances at future survival....”
The industrial revolution has occurred too recently to have a significant evolutionary impact.
Even within the modern ere, knowledge helps the individual to survive.
Anyone stupid enough to not know that it is dangerous to cross the road without looking first has less chances of survival and passing on his/her genes.
“...Hawkings didn't say he really likes copulating in order to increase man's regeneration efforts; he said he really needs the love of his family. ...”
That makes perfect evolutionary sense; love for his children motivate him to look after and care for them thus makes him increase the chances of his children surviving and passing on his genes.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton"That makes perfect evolutionary sense; love for his children motivate him to look after and care for them thus makes him increase the chances of his children surviving and passing on his genes."
“...Two-fold. Fold in half: knowledge of how things work--- at the end of the day--- simply imparts knowledge of how things work. Nothing else is conveyed and certainly no level of value imparted. ...”
If you understand how something works, you can; 1, predict its behaviour; 2, manipulate it to your advantage. Example; if you understand the behavi ...[text shortened]... r them thus makes him increase the chances of his children surviving and passing on his genes.
No, love isn't something where if you get something out of it, it is good.
If that is what you think love is I doubt you ever loved anyone.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay“...No, love isn't something where if you get something out of it, it is good. ...”
"That makes perfect evolutionary sense; love for his children motivate him to look after and care for them thus makes him increase the chances of his children surviving and passing on his genes."
No, love isn't something where if you get something out of it, it is good.
If that is what you think love is I doubt you ever loved anyone.
Kelly
Did I say this? I said love makes evolutionary sense because it makes us take care of our children and thus helps them to survive and pass on our genes. That does not mean nor imply in any way that, as far as we are concerned, love is 'good' BECAUSE it helps pass on our genes! Nor does this imply in anyway that we either consciously or subconsciously love to pass on our genes!
“...If that is what you think love is I doubt you ever loved anyone....”
I don't believe love is something we do for a reward nor have I implied that in any way. Oh, and I have loved.
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou're not paying attention and have yet to address the salient issue. Your default position is to point to the natural instinct prevalent in all of life and call it good--- or, at least close enough. That is clearly not at issue here. The drives you describe--- and attribute to some unnamed aspect of evolution: a drive? a force?--- somewhat adequately explain a man's desire to establish a family unit, but falls completely short of explaining why he would consider one quest inferior to the other.
I don't know what to tell you beyond that you need to do your homework. All you need, in order to make sense in evolutionary terms of the kind of prosocial human emotions/attitudes/dispositions at issue here, is some very basic understanding of things like kin selection, mutualism, reciprocity. In particular, given your focus on hearth & home, I would t ...[text shortened]... relevant:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=132598&page=7#post_2509802
If the search for knowledge can be explained as an evolutionary necessity (and it makes sense, to a degree), surely the ammunition such a quest provides far exceeds the benefits derived from any other secondary drive.
When man seeks knowledge, the evolutionist points to the act saying 'man seeks this knowledge in order to achieve superiority, gain advantage over competitors.' When man seeks relations, the evolutionist points to the act saying 'man seeks relations in order to progress his progeny, which gives his line superiority and advantage over his competitors.' The former confers immediate advantage with long-term ramifications, whereas the latter demands immediate burden and produces an ambiguous (and otherwise, unrealized) long-term benefit.
Hawking is saying that first quest isn't satisfactory, is lacking. And he is clearly not saying he prefers to further his progeny's opportunities in their struggle for advancement. He is saying he needs the love of his family and friends in order to feel whole. The supposed evolutionary drive for "kin selection, mutualism, reciprocity," with their heavy and utter dependence upon competition, conferring advantage and so forth, fall far short of what is being described by Hawking. To pretend otherwise is nothing less than burying one's head in the sand.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBH“...When man seeks knowledge, the evolutionist points to the act saying 'man seeks this knowledge in order to achieve superiority, gain advantage over competitors.' ...”
You're not paying attention and have yet to address the salient issue. Your default position is to point to the natural instinct prevalent in all of life and call it good--- or, at least close enough. That is clearly not at issue here. The drives you describe--- and attribute to some unnamed aspect of evolution: a drive? a force?--- somewhat adequately y Hawking. To pretend otherwise is nothing less than burying one's head in the sand.
“...When man seeks relations, the evolutionist points to the act saying 'man seeks relations in order to progress his progeny, ...”
That is only partly true and only in the very narrow evolutionary sense and generally not true outside the very narrow evolutionary sense and thus this does not imply that man “ seeks relations” to consciously/subconsciously “ progress his progeny”! -and no evolutionist would say man “ seeks relations” to consciously/subconsciously “ progress his progeny”! -because that is not what evolution says.
“...which gives his line superiority ...”
-“superiority” has no real scientific meaning in this evolutionary context.
“...And he is clearly not saying he prefers to further his progeny's opportunities in their struggle for advancement. He is saying he needs the love of his family and friends ...”
Correct -and this doesn’t in any way conflict with evolutionary theory. Evolution doesn’t say/imply WHY we SHOULD consciously want to do what we want to do nor does it say that the conscious/subconscious reason why we do what we do corresponds to or is identical to the evolutionary reason why we evolved to have the predisposition to behave that way. The evolutionary reason why we have a predisposition to do something is not to be confused with why we CONSCIOUSLY do it because those two things can be and often are totally different and one as no direct relation to the other.
Originally posted by duecerYou may notice that that is less often the case when the relationship involved direct inheritance of genes. For example you may disagree with your parents and your siblings, but are far less likely to deliberately have a contentious relationship with your children.
Many people have contentious relationships with their family, to the point of wanting nothing to do with them.
But that is besides the point. Can you show that the families in the contentious relationships you describe have no love for their families? What other factors have you taken into consideration? There are other forces at work too - such as the fact that inbreeding can cause problems.
Freaky may be on to something here about the need for humans to love and feel loved...not just by sexual partners and family.
If that is what Freaky is 'on to' which I rather doubt, then the answer is straight forward: social behavior is generally beneficial regardless of the relationship. Thought there is a balance between social and selfish behavior as predicted by game theory and borne out by observation.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAgain: do you homework, will ya? With your claim (that these kinds of human prosocial attitudes are not explainable in evolutionary terms), you'll continue to get looks of stupefaction from those who have actually bothered to do their research on evolutionary theory.
You're not paying attention and have yet to address the salient issue. Your default position is to point to the natural instinct prevalent in all of life and call it good--- or, at least close enough. That is clearly not at issue here. The drives you describe--- and attribute to some unnamed aspect of evolution: a drive? a force?--- somewhat adequately y Hawking. To pretend otherwise is nothing less than burying one's head in the sand.
When man seeks knowledge, the evolutionist points to the act saying 'man seeks this knowledge in order to achieve superiority, gain advantage over competitors.' When man seeks relations, the evolutionist points to the act saying 'man seeks relations in order to progress his progeny, which gives his line superiority and advantage over his competitors.' The former confers immediate advantage with long-term ramifications, whereas the latter demands immediate burden and produces an ambiguous (and otherwise, unrealized) long-term benefit.
.
.
.
And [Hawking] is clearly not saying he prefers to further his progeny's opportunities in their struggle for advancement.
No, that is not what evolutionary theory says. And it should be clear (if you bother to read the post to which I linked above) that you are making precisely the notional error that is the subject of the Joyce quote I provided there. The notional mistake, again, is to confuse the providing of explanation for the origin of some attitude with providing actual content of the attitude. Did you bother to read the link at all?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHStop right there. Where on earth do you get that from? Surely the well known fact that plants do not 'search for knowledge' in any meaningful way should tell us that either it is not an 'evolutionary necessity' or plants did not evolve. Guess which I think is the case.
If the search for knowledge can be explained as an evolutionary necessity .......
If anything 'the search for knowledge' is a trait found in only a fairly small group of species and even amongst those it is hardly the primary behavior.
Or are you under the mistaken impression that mankind is the pinnacle of evolution with Hawking being the pinnacle of mankind's evolution?
Originally posted by twhiteheadoctopuses are wicked smaht!
Stop right there. Where on earth do you get that from? Surely the well known fact that plants do not 'search for knowledge' in any meaningful way should tell us that either it is not an 'evolutionary necessity' or plants did not evolve. Guess which I think is the case.
If anything 'the search for knowledge' is a trait found in only a fairly small group o ...[text shortened]... kind is the pinnacle of evolution with Hawking being the pinnacle of mankind's evolution?
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou'll need to be a little more precise than this. Exactly what are you saying, relative to the topic?
Again: do you homework, will ya? With your claim (that these kinds of human prosocial attitudes are not explainable in evolutionary terms), you'll continue to get looks of stupefaction from those who have actually bothered to do their research on evolutionary theory.
When man seeks knowledge, the evolutionist points to the act saying 'man seeks thi de with providing actual content of the attitude. Did you bother to read the link at all?
I appreciate the fact that I'm completely wrong, pointed in the wrong direction, wrong-headed with a bent toward wrong and pressed down with a measure of incorrectness... but I'd like you to say specifically what is wrong and then follow up with the right view, according to your beliefs.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSurely the well known fact that plants do not 'search for knowledge' in any meaningful way should tell us that either it is not an 'evolutionary necessity' or plants did not evolve.
Stop right there. Where on earth do you get that from? Surely the well known fact that plants do not 'search for knowledge' in any meaningful way should tell us that either it is not an 'evolutionary necessity' or plants did not evolve. Guess which I think is the case.
If anything 'the search for knowledge' is a trait found in only a fairly small group o ...[text shortened]... kind is the pinnacle of evolution with Hawking being the pinnacle of mankind's evolution?
Quit looking at my cards, sir.